3 ms·

> ElementaryOS didn't name their project "Debian". Is the vast majority of the elementaryOS distribution from Debian/Ubuntu upstream? > The GPL absolutely doe

> ElementaryOS didn't name their project "Debian". Is the vast majority of the elementaryOS distribution from Debian/Ubuntu upstream? > The GPL absolutely does not give you the right to use trademarks or patents The GPL does give users the right to verbatim copy works as they were originally distributed.

kube-system 5y ago
> The GPL does give users the right to verbatim copy works as they were originally distributed. Yes. This is true...as it pertains to copyright. The GPL does not convey any other rights, including trademark, patents, the right to sleep on Torvald's couch, or anything else. If something is not copyrightable, it cannot be licensed with GPL. Names cannot be copyrighted. They are covered by trademark law, which GPL does not address... because it is a copyright license.
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#gnu-gpl-v3 https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#gnu-gpl-v3 They would need to provide this kind of additional text in their license, but they did not.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kube-system 5y ago
    I think it is worth taking a step back to note that the mere copying of a trademark is not a trademark infringement. That clause is there (in GPLv3) to clarify that someone can reiterate their trademark rights while using GPLv3, but only as much as it doesn’t affect the licensing of the copyrighted work. It is saying that GPLv3 is not compatible with a phrase about trademarks that would restrict copyright, like: “if you say this is for Debian then you can’t copy it” The natural state of trademark law is that you can mention other people’s trademarks. You can say your project is compatible with Debian. You just can’t use them to misrepresent yourself to consumers. That’s law, not GPL.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  > patents It appears that GPLv3 also has a patent grant https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html > 11. Patents. > A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's “contributor version”. > A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License. > Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version. > (...)
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Yes, this is 100% correct for v3. I was thinking v2 when I wrote the above.

kube-system 5y ago

> The GPL does give users the right to verbatim copy works as they were originally distributed. Yes. This is true...as it pertains to copyright. The GPL does not convey any other rights, including trademark, patents, the right to sleep on Torvald's couch, or anything else. If something is not copyrightable, it cannot be licensed with GPL. Names cannot be copyrighted. They are covered by trademark law, which GPL does not address... because it is a copyright license.

ddtaylor 5y ago
https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#gnu-gpl-v3 https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#gnu-gpl-v3 They would need to provide this kind of additional text in their license, but they did not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 5y ago
  I think it is worth taking a step back to note that the mere copying of a trademark is not a trademark infringement. That clause is there (in GPLv3) to clarify that someone can reiterate their trademark rights while using GPLv3, but only as much as it doesn’t affect the licensing of the copyrighted work. It is saying that GPLv3 is not compatible with a phrase about trademarks that would restrict copyright, like: “if you say this is for Debian then you can’t copy it” The natural state of trademark law is that you can mention other people’s trademarks. You can say your project is compatible with Debian. You just can’t use them to misrepresent yourself to consumers. That’s law, not GPL.
nextaccountic 5y ago
> patents It appears that GPLv3 also has a patent grant https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html > 11. Patents. > A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's “contributor version”. > A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License. > Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version. > (...)
- kube-system 5y ago
  Yes, this is 100% correct for v3. I was thinking v2 when I wrote the above.